If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I have a theory on this. It's because of the way so many have been
raised.
Women have traditionally been the organizers in families. They see
to
it
that
the vacations, Dr. appts, home repairs, etc. are booked, the
family
events are
attended, etc. Boys grow into men that have seen their mothes be
the
organizers
and then marry women who continue the pattern.

The best way to stop this is for parents to stop raising boys to
expect
this of
women and stop raising girls to accept this as their solo role as
women.
Do it
by example and in word.

I'm doing my share.

Mrs Indyguy

I have some theories too, and they're very different from Mrs.
Indyguy's. I think that very few men are willing to come out and
openly
stand up for the interests of men, in situations where those
interests
are entirely the opposite of women -- as is the case in most
domestic
relations matters.

Bear in mind too that men who fight the system are subject to the very
real
threat of jail time as well as losing their worldly possessions just
because
they are standing up to the system. Women, on the other hand, at the
very
worst would simply be told to just "shut the f___ up". Not much to
lose
there.

Why do you say that? Why would they go to jail or lose their worldly
possessions because they protested against the system? Now, if their
protest was in the form of refusing to pay child support, then I can see
where that might be true. But organizing and picketing, etc--why would
that
merit jail time? And if women were out there picketing with them, why
do
you think the women would get different treatment? Do you have any
examples
of this happening?

I was held in contempt of court and sanctioned for trying to stand up to
the
system on three occasions. One time I was in contempt for attempting the
"re-litigate" an issue. Another time I was in contempt for "dragging my
ex-spouse back into court." And finally, I was held in contempt for
"failing to inform the court my ex-spouse was having trouble transferring
an
asset to her name." In everyone of these examples the judge ignored her
own
order in the decree and held me accountable with sanctions for trying to
get
the decree implemented as written and signed.

Did you have to spend any time in jail time for contempt or did you just
have to pay a fine?

I have a theory on this. It's because of the way so many have
been
raised.
Women have traditionally been the organizers in families. They
see
to
it
that
the vacations, Dr. appts, home repairs, etc. are booked, the
family
events are
attended, etc. Boys grow into men that have seen their mothes be
the
organizers
and then marry women who continue the pattern.

The best way to stop this is for parents to stop raising boys to
expect
this of
women and stop raising girls to accept this as their solo role
as
women.
Do it
by example and in word.

I'm doing my share.

Mrs Indyguy

I have some theories too, and they're very different from Mrs.
Indyguy's. I think that very few men are willing to come out and
openly
stand up for the interests of men, in situations where those
interests
are entirely the opposite of women -- as is the case in most
domestic
relations matters.

Bear in mind too that men who fight the system are subject to the
very
real
threat of jail time as well as losing their worldly possessions just
because
they are standing up to the system. Women, on the other hand, at the
very
worst would simply be told to just "shut the f___ up". Not much to
lose
there.

Why do you say that? Why would they go to jail or lose their worldly
possessions because they protested against the system? Now, if their
protest was in the form of refusing to pay child support, then I can
see
where that might be true. But organizing and picketing, etc--why
would
that
merit jail time? And if women were out there picketing with them, why
do
you think the women would get different treatment? Do you have any
examples
of this happening?

I was held in contempt of court and sanctioned for trying to stand up to
the
system on three occasions. One time I was in contempt for attempting
the
"re-litigate" an issue. Another time I was in contempt for "dragging my
ex-spouse back into court." And finally, I was held in contempt for
"failing to inform the court my ex-spouse was having trouble
transferring
an
asset to her name." In everyone of these examples the judge ignored her
own
order in the decree and held me accountable with sanctions for trying to
get
the decree implemented as written and signed.

Did you have to spend any time in jail time for contempt or did you just
have to pay a fine?

Neither. The judge ordered me to deliver the proceeds from a retirement
account to my ex's attorney within 24 hours and have that attorney contact
her by phone, or she would issue a bench warrant for my arrest. By
liquidating the retirement account to stay out of jail, I was hit with a
$21,500 tax liability for taking a premature retirement distribution. I had
signed a written release on the account. My ex's attorney had reported in
writing to my attorney the asset transfer had been completed and no further
assistance was needed from me, and there would be no need for the attorneys
to prepare a QDRO for the court to sign. My perspective is I was penalized
for following the decree, accepting her statements that the transfer was
completed, and accepting her attorney's input no QDRO would be necessary to
complete the transfer. The judge told me it was all my fault.

I was threatened with jail. I was not fined directly by the court. But the
penalty imposed by the court was converting a gross before taxes amount to a
net after taxes amount dollar for dollar. So the penalty was me paying the
taxes and premature distribution fees liability for my ex because she told
the judge she wouldn't accept an IRA to IRA transfer.

In researching the tax laws, with the help of a tax attorney and several
communications with IRS legal representatives, I found this happens a lot.
When retirement accounts are awarded in property settlements, the recipient
can refuse to accept the asset into their own IRA account, and the original
owner of the account is forced to pay the taxes when the account is
liquidated to comply with state court orders.

I have a theory on this. It's because of the way so many have
been
raised.
Women have traditionally been the organizers in families. They
see
to
it
that
the vacations, Dr. appts, home repairs, etc. are booked, the
family
events are
attended, etc. Boys grow into men that have seen their mothes
be
the
organizers
and then marry women who continue the pattern.

The best way to stop this is for parents to stop raising boys
to
expect
this of
women and stop raising girls to accept this as their solo role
as
women.
Do it
by example and in word.

I'm doing my share.

Mrs Indyguy

I have some theories too, and they're very different from Mrs.
Indyguy's. I think that very few men are willing to come out
and
openly
stand up for the interests of men, in situations where those
interests
are entirely the opposite of women -- as is the case in most
domestic
relations matters.

Bear in mind too that men who fight the system are subject to the
very
real
threat of jail time as well as losing their worldly possessions
just
because
they are standing up to the system. Women, on the other hand, at
the
very
worst would simply be told to just "shut the f___ up". Not much to
lose
there.

Why do you say that? Why would they go to jail or lose their
worldly
possessions because they protested against the system? Now, if
their
protest was in the form of refusing to pay child support, then I can
see
where that might be true. But organizing and picketing, etc--why
would
that
merit jail time? And if women were out there picketing with them,
why
do
you think the women would get different treatment? Do you have any
examples
of this happening?

I was held in contempt of court and sanctioned for trying to stand up
to
the
system on three occasions. One time I was in contempt for attempting
the
"re-litigate" an issue. Another time I was in contempt for "dragging
my
ex-spouse back into court." And finally, I was held in contempt for
"failing to inform the court my ex-spouse was having trouble
transferring
an
asset to her name." In everyone of these examples the judge ignored
her
own
order in the decree and held me accountable with sanctions for trying
to
get
the decree implemented as written and signed.

Did you have to spend any time in jail time for contempt or did you just
have to pay a fine?

Neither. The judge ordered me to deliver the proceeds from a retirement
account to my ex's attorney within 24 hours and have that attorney contact
her by phone, or she would issue a bench warrant for my arrest. By
liquidating the retirement account to stay out of jail, I was hit with a
$21,500 tax liability for taking a premature retirement distribution. I
had
signed a written release on the account. My ex's attorney had reported in
writing to my attorney the asset transfer had been completed and no
further
assistance was needed from me, and there would be no need for the
attorneys
to prepare a QDRO for the court to sign. My perspective is I was
penalized
for following the decree, accepting her statements that the transfer was
completed, and accepting her attorney's input no QDRO would be necessary
to
complete the transfer. The judge told me it was all my fault.

I was threatened with jail. I was not fined directly by the court. But
the
penalty imposed by the court was converting a gross before taxes amount to
a
net after taxes amount dollar for dollar. So the penalty was me paying
the
taxes and premature distribution fees liability for my ex because she told
the judge she wouldn't accept an IRA to IRA transfer.

In researching the tax laws, with the help of a tax attorney and several
communications with IRS legal representatives, I found this happens a lot.
When retirement accounts are awarded in property settlements, the
recipient
can refuse to accept the asset into their own IRA account, and the
original
owner of the account is forced to pay the taxes when the account is
liquidated to comply with state court orders.

I forgot one thing I wanted to say. This hearing was just another example
of how lawyers lie in court all the time. Their whole case was based on the
premise I had "hidden" the asset from my ex. I pointed out to the judge my
ex's attorney and I had a detailed meeting on this asset, how to transfer
it, and my desire to gain some level of compensation for protecting the
asset, filing all the required tax returns, etc. to maintain the assets tax
deductibilty. My point was I could have not acted and let the IRS seize the
asset because of her neglect in getting it transferred inot her name.

The attorney lied and told the judge the meeting I cited had never occured
after my ex got all huffy because her attorney had not informed her about
the meeting and our discussions. I was ordered to pay her attorney fees
and we were supposed to have a follow-up hearing to discuss any objections I
might have. The problem for the attorney was the 1 1/2 hour meeting she
denied ever took place was detailed in her client billing records. My ex
was ****ed her attorney dropped the ball in pursuing the attorney fee award.
I told my ex her attorney knew I was going to ask for a reversal of the
prior ruling based on the attorney's intentional misrepresentation of the
facts, for sanctions against her attorney for lying in open court to gain an
advantage for her client, and ask for a referral to the state bar for
additional censure action.

My ex went to her attorney and miraculously the attorney was quick to
write-off all the attorney fees.

TeacherMama scribbled:
"Chris" wrote in message
Why would they go to jail or lose their worldly
possessions because they protested against the system? Now, if
their protest was in the form of refusing to pay child support,
then I can see where that might be true. But organizing and
picketing, etc--why would that merit jail time?
It doesn't, but they get it anyway.
When? When did men get sent to jail for picketing about CS matters?

FYI TM......
The term "totalitarian" is frequently used to characterize high-profile
feminist campaigns such as "sexual harassment" and "date rape." Much
of this is exaggeration. Yet far more serious, and much less
scrutinized, is something going on in the United States - the
billion-dollar divorce, child custody, and child support industry.
In only the last few months, according to one federal public defender,
"the number of federal child support prosecutions has skyrocketed." And
it usually is the father who is targeted. If children are given in
custody to all his financial records. A father will be questioned about
how he "feels" about his children, what he does with them, where he
takes them, how he kisses them, how he feeds and bathes them, what he
buys for them, and what he discusses with them. Family courts regularly
tell fathers what worship they may or must take their children to and
control their discussions with their children about matters such as
religion and politics. Fathers must surrender personal diaries,
notebooks, correspondence, financial records, and other documents.

In many jurisdictions it is now a crime to criticize family court
judges. Following his congressional testimony critical of the family
courts in 1992, Jim Wagner was stripped of custody of his two children
and jailed by a Georgia judge. In both Britain and Australia, fathers
have been jailed for criticizing judges. Children too have been jailed
for refusing to testify against their father.

Government agents increasingly assume a vast array of intrusive powers
over parents whose children they control. "Never before have federal
officials had the legal authority and technological ability to . . .
keep tabs on Americans accused of nothing," declared the Washington
Post.

In Britain, the National Association for Child Support Action has
published a "Book of the Dead," chronicling 55 cases where it claims the
official Court Coroner concluded fathers were driven to suicide because
of judgements from family courts.

Why is this happening? The English-speaking countries with their Common
Law tradition allow enormous power to judges and lawyers. But the
problem is increasingly worldwide. In 1997 the German magazine Der
Spiegel ran a cover story on "The Fatherless Society." In February 1998
Deputy Pavel Dostal, now Minister of Culture, met with Czech fathers
protesting outside Parliament for changes in the family law.

Psychologist Eduard Bakalar, who has served as a court expert in custody
cases and heads Consultancy for Fathers (Poradna pro otce) in Prague,
says while fathers have not been criminalized to the extent they have in
the anglophone nations, they do face systematic bias in the courts,
which has been the prelude to criminalization. Bakalar also observes
"constant anti-father propaganda" in the media, especially noting the
impact of American films. "It is a systematic effort to devalue
fatherhood," he says.

Family courts routinely ignore basic civil liberties and international
human rights conventions. "Your job is not to become concerned about the
constitutional rights of the man that you're violating as you grant a
restraining order," American municipal court judge Richard Russell told
a judges' training seminar in 1994. "Throw him out on the street, give
him the clothes on his back and tell him, see ya around. . . . We don't
have to worry about the rights."

Family law is now criminalizing activity as basic as free speech. In
Australia it is a crime for litigants to speak publicly about family
law. A Sydney group protesting peacefully in 1998 was told "if any
people who had any involvement with family court were identified the
media and that person would be prosecuted to the fullest extent" of the
law. As in Britain, Australian family courts have closed Internet sites
operated by parents' groups.

In some American jurisdictions it is likewise a crime to criticise
judges. The former husband of singer Wynonna Judd was recently arrested
for speaking to reporters about his divorce. A father protesting outside
his Los Angeles home on Fathers' Day 1998 that he had not seen his son
in more than two years was apprehended by police for a "psychiatric
evaluation". Following his congressional testimony critical of family
courts, a Georgia father was stripped of custody of his two children,
ordered to pay lawyers he had not hired, and jailed. "We believe the
court is attempting to punish [him] for exposing the court's misconduct
to a congressional committee," said the president of a local fathers'
group.http://users.rcn.com/baskerville/nig...mily_court.htm

So, TM, tell us again why you *apparently* hold the view that being
jailed for protesting against CS laws doesn't happen.

# Expecting men to be treated fairly is not a bad lesson to teach your
children. The problem today is that too many women want men to be
responsible so the woman don't have to be.

I didn't say it didn't happen. I asked Chris to document instances where a
group peacefully picketing outside a courthouse about the injustices of
today's CS system were prevented from doing so, the MEN were jsiled, and the
women just sent on their ways. That is what he claimed.

I do understand how unfair today's system is, Max. I'm in the middle of it,
too!!

"Max Burke" wrote in message
...
TeacherMama scribbled:
"Chris" wrote in message
Why would they go to jail or lose their worldly
possessions because they protested against the system? Now, if
their protest was in the form of refusing to pay child support,
then I can see where that might be true. But organizing and
picketing, etc--why would that merit jail time?
It doesn't, but they get it anyway.
When? When did men get sent to jail for picketing about CS matters?

FYI TM......
The term "totalitarian" is frequently used to characterize high-profile
feminist campaigns such as "sexual harassment" and "date rape." Much
of this is exaggeration. Yet far more serious, and much less
scrutinized, is something going on in the United States - the
billion-dollar divorce, child custody, and child support industry.
In only the last few months, according to one federal public defender,
"the number of federal child support prosecutions has skyrocketed." And
it usually is the father who is targeted. If children are given in
custody to all his financial records. A father will be questioned about
how he "feels" about his children, what he does with them, where he
takes them, how he kisses them, how he feeds and bathes them, what he
buys for them, and what he discusses with them. Family courts regularly
tell fathers what worship they may or must take their children to and
control their discussions with their children about matters such as
religion and politics. Fathers must surrender personal diaries,
notebooks, correspondence, financial records, and other documents.

In many jurisdictions it is now a crime to criticize family court
judges. Following his congressional testimony critical of the family
courts in 1992, Jim Wagner was stripped of custody of his two children
and jailed by a Georgia judge. In both Britain and Australia, fathers
have been jailed for criticizing judges. Children too have been jailed
for refusing to testify against their father.

Government agents increasingly assume a vast array of intrusive powers
over parents whose children they control. "Never before have federal
officials had the legal authority and technological ability to . . .
keep tabs on Americans accused of nothing," declared the Washington
Post.

In Britain, the National Association for Child Support Action has
published a "Book of the Dead," chronicling 55 cases where it claims the
official Court Coroner concluded fathers were driven to suicide because
of judgements from family courts.

Why is this happening? The English-speaking countries with their Common
Law tradition allow enormous power to judges and lawyers. But the
problem is increasingly worldwide. In 1997 the German magazine Der
Spiegel ran a cover story on "The Fatherless Society." In February 1998
Deputy Pavel Dostal, now Minister of Culture, met with Czech fathers
protesting outside Parliament for changes in the family law.

Psychologist Eduard Bakalar, who has served as a court expert in custody
cases and heads Consultancy for Fathers (Poradna pro otce) in Prague,
says while fathers have not been criminalized to the extent they have in
the anglophone nations, they do face systematic bias in the courts,
which has been the prelude to criminalization. Bakalar also observes
"constant anti-father propaganda" in the media, especially noting the
impact of American films. "It is a systematic effort to devalue
fatherhood," he says.

Family courts routinely ignore basic civil liberties and international
human rights conventions. "Your job is not to become concerned about the
constitutional rights of the man that you're violating as you grant a
restraining order," American municipal court judge Richard Russell told
a judges' training seminar in 1994. "Throw him out on the street, give
him the clothes on his back and tell him, see ya around. . . . We don't
have to worry about the rights."

Family law is now criminalizing activity as basic as free speech. In
Australia it is a crime for litigants to speak publicly about family
law. A Sydney group protesting peacefully in 1998 was told "if any
people who had any involvement with family court were identified the
media and that person would be prosecuted to the fullest extent" of the
law. As in Britain, Australian family courts have closed Internet sites
operated by parents' groups.

In some American jurisdictions it is likewise a crime to criticise
judges. The former husband of singer Wynonna Judd was recently arrested
for speaking to reporters about his divorce. A father protesting outside
his Los Angeles home on Fathers' Day 1998 that he had not seen his son
in more than two years was apprehended by police for a "psychiatric
evaluation". Following his congressional testimony critical of family
courts, a Georgia father was stripped of custody of his two children,
ordered to pay lawyers he had not hired, and jailed. "We believe the
court is attempting to punish [him] for exposing the court's misconduct
to a congressional committee," said the president of a local fathers'
group.http://users.rcn.com/baskerville/nig...mily_court.htm

So, TM, tell us again why you *apparently* hold the view that being
jailed for protesting against CS laws doesn't happen.

# Expecting men to be treated fairly is not a bad lesson to teach your
children. The problem today is that too many women want men to be
responsible so the woman don't have to be.

TeacherMama scribbled:
I didn't say it didn't happen. I asked Chris to document instances
where a group peacefully picketing outside a courthouse about the
injustices of
today's CS system were prevented from doing so, the MEN were jsiled,
and the women just sent on their ways. That is what he claimed.

Did you even READ what I posted?????
The question that needs to be answered is why are YOU asking for proof
that it happens when clearly it DOES happen.....
I do understand how unfair today's system is, Max. I'm in the middle
of it, too!!

And yet you question what many of us post about the unfair 'system.'
And you also *defend* several aspects of this 'unfair system' as being
justified and right.
Why is that?

# Expecting men to be treated fairly is not a bad lesson to teach your
children. The problem today is that too many women want men to be
responsible so the woman don't have to be.

"Max Burke" wrote in message
news
TeacherMama scribbled:
I didn't say it didn't happen. I asked Chris to document instances
where a group peacefully picketing outside a courthouse about the
injustices of
today's CS system were prevented from doing so, the MEN were jsiled,
and the women just sent on their ways. That is what he claimed.

Did you even READ what I posted?????
The question that needs to be answered is why are YOU asking for proof
that it happens when clearly it DOES happen.....
I do understand how unfair today's system is, Max. I'm in the middle
of it, too!!

And yet you question what many of us post about the unfair 'system.'
And you also *defend* several aspects of this 'unfair system' as being
justified and right.
Why is that?

Well, Max, since you asked, my impression is that YOU feel that ANY support
paid for children is evil and wrong! I don't feel the same way. I do not
feel that men should have the right to walk away from their children just
because they want to. I think there needs to be a system that gives men
equal rights to women as far as choosing to be fathers. But I do not think
that permitting them to father children and walk away any time they choose
should be part of the system. And I've said that before.

I believe joint custody shoud be the norm. But if a situation crops up
where one parent or the other is unable to parent (whether it be abuse--REAL
abuse, not the nonsense claims we see too often today--or not wanting to be
bothered), OF COURSE the NCP should pay their share of the child's NEEDS!
The idea behind the system--that children should be provided for by their
parents--is not a bad idea. It's how it is being done today that needs to
be changed--starting with 50-50 custody!

And dumping a SAH parent back into the job market after years of taking care
of home and family and saying "Support 'em your 50% of the time by yourself"
isn't right, either. You don't want a fair system, Max. You want
"fairness" for men--and screw the kids and women.

Besides which, the question was for Chris. He jumps in with these little
one-liners, but never backs up what he says with fact.

TeacherMama scribbled:
Max Burke wrote:
I didn't say it didn't happen. I asked Chris to document instances
where a group peacefully picketing outside a courthouse about the
injustices of
today's CS system were prevented from doing so, the MEN were jsiled,
and the women just sent on their ways. That is what he claimed.
Did you even READ what I posted?????
The question that needs to be answered is why are YOU asking for
proof that it happens when clearly it DOES happen.....
I do understand how unfair today's system is, Max. I'm in the
middle of it, too!!
And yet you question what many of us post about the unfair 'system.'
And you also *defend* several aspects of this 'unfair system' as
being justified and right.
Why is that?
Well, Max, since you asked, my impression is that YOU feel that ANY
support paid for children is evil and wrong!

Strawman and BS.....
This is *your* wrong impression........
I don't feel the same
way. I do not feel that men should have the right to walk away from
their children just because they want to.

Let men be *real fathers* to their children and they DONT walk away.
I think there needs to be
a system that gives men equal rights to women as far as choosing to
be fathers. But I do not think that permitting them to father
children and walk away any time they choose should be part of the
system. And I've said that before.

IOW men should not have the legal and moral right to decide if they'll
be a parent or not, even though women already have that right.
I believe joint custody shoud be the norm. But if a situation crops
up where one parent or the other is unable to parent (whether it be
abuse--REAL abuse, not the nonsense claims we see too often today--or
not wanting to be bothered),

Real abuse happens in only *SIX PERCENT* of divorces; Seventy percent of
divorces happen because the other person is NOT the person the one
seeking the divorce wants them to be. Two thirds of all divorces are
initiated by *women.*
OF COURSE the NCP should pay their share
of the child's NEEDS! The idea behind the system--that children
should be provided for by their parents--is not a bad idea. It's how
it is being done today that needs to be changed--starting with 50-50
custody!
And dumping a SAH parent back into the job market after years of
taking care of home and family and saying "Support 'em your 50% of
the time by yourself" isn't right, either.

Then neither is dumping the wage earner into the SAH role. What do YOU
say about that TM? what form of compensation do YOU think the SAH should
have to pay the wage earner when that happens? Anything at ALL?

Me, I believe neither needs to be compensated in any way at all by their
ex for their chosen marital roles when the divorce becomes final.
You don't want a fair
system, Max. You want "fairness" for men--and screw the kids and
women.

Strawman. Oh and BS as well (especially the bit about the kids).....
I want men to be treated the same way women are currently treated as
parents to their own children and as divorcees.....
Why you find that idea wrong is something you need to explain, not
me......
Besides which, the question was for Chris. He jumps in with these
little one-liners, but never backs up what he says with fact.

This is a public forum where everyone gets to participate.......

# If the abstract rights of men will bear discussion and explanation,
then those of women, by a parity of reasoning, will not fail the same
test; Although a different opinion prevails in the minds of most women
when their rights are put to that test....

"Max Burke" wrote in message
...
TeacherMama scribbled:
Max Burke wrote:
I didn't say it didn't happen. I asked Chris to document instances
where a group peacefully picketing outside a courthouse about the
injustices of
today's CS system were prevented from doing so, the MEN were jsiled,
and the women just sent on their ways. That is what he claimed.
Did you even READ what I posted?????
The question that needs to be answered is why are YOU asking for
proof that it happens when clearly it DOES happen.....
I do understand how unfair today's system is, Max. I'm in the
middle of it, too!!
And yet you question what many of us post about the unfair 'system.'
And you also *defend* several aspects of this 'unfair system' as
being justified and right.
Why is that?
Well, Max, since you asked, my impression is that YOU feel that ANY
support paid for children is evil and wrong!

Strawman and BS.....
This is *your* wrong impression........
I don't feel the same
way. I do not feel that men should have the right to walk away from
their children just because they want to.

Let men be *real fathers* to their children and they DONT walk away.
I think there needs to be
a system that gives men equal rights to women as far as choosing to
be fathers. But I do not think that permitting them to father
children and walk away any time they choose should be part of the
system. And I've said that before.

IOW men should not have the legal and moral right to decide if they'll
be a parent or not, even though women already have that right.
I believe joint custody shoud be the norm. But if a situation crops
up where one parent or the other is unable to parent (whether it be
abuse--REAL abuse, not the nonsense claims we see too often today--or
not wanting to be bothered),

Real abuse happens in only *SIX PERCENT* of divorces; Seventy percent of
divorces happen because the other person is NOT the person the one
seeking the divorce wants them to be. Two thirds of all divorces are
initiated by *women.*
OF COURSE the NCP should pay their share
of the child's NEEDS! The idea behind the system--that children
should be provided for by their parents--is not a bad idea. It's how
it is being done today that needs to be changed--starting with 50-50
custody!
And dumping a SAH parent back into the job market after years of
taking care of home and family and saying "Support 'em your 50% of
the time by yourself" isn't right, either.

Then neither is dumping the wage earner into the SAH role. What do YOU
say about that TM? what form of compensation do YOU think the SAH should
have to pay the wage earner when that happens? Anything at ALL?

Me, I believe neither needs to be compensated in any way at all by their
ex for their chosen marital roles when the divorce becomes final.
You don't want a fair
system, Max. You want "fairness" for men--and screw the kids and
women.

Strawman. Oh and BS as well (especially the bit about the kids).....
I want men to be treated the same way women are currently treated as
parents to their own children and as divorcees.....
Why you find that idea wrong is something you need to explain, not
me......
Besides which, the question was for Chris. He jumps in with these
little one-liners, but never backs up what he says with fact.

This is a public forum where everyone gets to participate.......

And anyone who participates can be asked to clarify their statements.
(Chris just doesn't tend to do that.)

So, Max, in order that I can fully understand your position on these issues,
tell me what you think the system should be like. Start from scratch--don't
patch up today's system by giving men "as many rights" as women, because we
know darn well that will not work. Telling men "If you don't want the kid,
just say you don't wanna be a dad." and telling women "you didn't create
the kid alone, you have a right to help from the dad." is only going to
create a battle of "rights"--it won't solve the problem.

So, you found a lamp on the beach, rubbed it, and out came a genie, who says
"Tell me how to fix the family court system." What would you say, Max?

TeacherMama scribbled:
"Max Burke" wrote in message
I didn't say it didn't happen. I asked Chris to document instances
where a group peacefully picketing outside a courthouse about the
injustices of
today's CS system were prevented from doing so, the MEN were jsiled,
and the women just sent on their ways. That is what he claimed.
Did you even READ what I posted?????
The question that needs to be answered is why are YOU asking for
proof that it happens when clearly it DOES happen.....
I do understand how unfair today's system is, Max. I'm in the
middle of it, too!!
And yet you question what many of us post about the unfair
'system.' And you also *defend* several aspects of this 'unfair
system' as
being justified and right.
Why is that?
Well, Max, since you asked, my impression is that YOU feel that ANY
support paid for children is evil and wrong!

Strawman and BS.....
This is *your* wrong impression........
I don't feel the same
way. I do not feel that men should have the right to walk away from
their children just because they want to.

Let men be *real fathers* to their children and they DONT walk away.
I think there needs to be
a system that gives men equal rights to women as far as choosing to
be fathers. But I do not think that permitting them to father
children and walk away any time they choose should be part of the
system. And I've said that before.

IOW men should not have the legal and moral right to decide if
they'll
be a parent or not, even though women already have that right.
I believe joint custody shoud be the norm. But if a situation crops
up where one parent or the other is unable to parent (whether it be
abuse--REAL abuse, not the nonsense claims we see too often
today--or not wanting to be bothered),

Real abuse happens in only *SIX PERCENT* of divorces; Seventy
percent of divorces happen because the other person is NOT the
person the one seeking the divorce wants them to be. Two thirds of
all divorces are initiated by *women.*
OF COURSE the NCP should pay their share
of the child's NEEDS! The idea behind the system--that children
should be provided for by their parents--is not a bad idea. It's
how it is being done today that needs to be changed--starting with
50-50 custody!
And dumping a SAH parent back into the job market after years of
taking care of home and family and saying "Support 'em your 50% of
the time by yourself" isn't right, either.

Then neither is dumping the wage earner into the SAH role. What do
YOU say about that TM? what form of compensation do YOU think the
SAH should have to pay the wage earner when that happens? Anything
at ALL?

Me, I believe neither needs to be compensated in any way at all by
their ex for their chosen marital roles when the divorce becomes
final.
You don't want a fair
system, Max. You want "fairness" for men--and screw the kids and
women.

Strawman. Oh and BS as well (especially the bit about the kids).....
I want men to be treated the same way women are currently treated as
parents to their own children and as divorcees.....
Why you find that idea wrong is something you need to explain, not
me......
Besides which, the question was for Chris. He jumps in with these
little one-liners, but never backs up what he says with fact.
This is a public forum where everyone gets to participate.......
And anyone who participates can be asked to clarify their statements.
(Chris just doesn't tend to do that.)

I'm STILL waiting for you clarify several statements of yours. But you
conveniently ignore them....

I'll try again with this one:
When YOU believe that:
.....dumping a SAH parent back into the job market after years of taking
care of home and family and saying "Support 'em your 50% of the time by
yourself" isn't right, either.

I responded By asking:
......is dumping the wage earner into the SAH role right after years of
working? What do YOU say about that TM? what form of compensation do YOU
think the SAH should have to pay the wage earner when that happens?
Anything at ALL?
So, Max, in order that I can fully understand your position on these
issues, tell me what you think the system should be like.

That's simple. Make the system as legally and morally right to men and
their parental choices as it is for women.
Start from
scratch--don't patch up today's system by giving men "as many rights"
as women, because we know darn well that will not work.

There you go again, saying that giving men the same legal and moral
rights women already have will not work.......
Why wont it work? It works for women TM. It works damned well when they
have to decide if they will or will not be a parent.
Tell me why having that choice wont work for men?

This is why I believe your claimed stance of supporting men is so
hypocritical; You refuse to accept that men having the same legal and
moral rights as women already have to choose to be a parent or not wont
work if and when men have those rights.
Telling men
"If you don't want the kid, just say you don't wanna be a dad." and
telling women "you didn't create the kid alone, you have a right to
help from the dad." is only going to create a battle of "rights"--it
won't solve the problem.
So, you found a lamp on the beach, rubbed it, and out came a genie,
who says "Tell me how to fix the family court system." What would
you say, Max?

See above and below.

# If it's wrong to force women to become mothers of their unwanted
children (and it is), then it's just as wrong to force men to become
fathers of their unwanted children.....
If it's wrong to deny women the right to become mothers to their wanted
children (and it is), then it's just as wrong to deny men the right to
become fathers of their wanted children.....